Since the conversation on SAFETEA-LU’s successor began a few years ago, there has been a near unanimous focus on the need to transition to a more performance-based method to fund the nation’s roads, bridges and transit systems. AAA supports this shift. The challenge going forward does not seem to be internal division within the transportation community, or political problems associated with the shift, but rather the complexity of the reform itself. It will take time – and money – to implement this new approach. Time will be needed to achieve consensus on common standards and to identify data needs and inconsistencies. Money will be needed to improve data collection in every state. Data isn’t sexy and doesn’t lend itself to a ribbon-cutting, but it is vital to the success of a future performance-based system.

A lot of good work has been done to begin identifying potential performance measures and help policymakers evaluate various metrics. Most recently, the National Transportation Policy Project in association with the Bipartisan Policy Center has made a contribution, but previously the US Chamber of Commerce, GHSA and NHTSA, TRB, GAO, as well as state and local DOTs have all contributed to the breadth of work.

Much is being made of the process by which we do “more with less” transportation dollars. Regardless of one’s view on that notion, it is clear that the value of dollars we invest will be stretched under a performance based system. The time to act is now while the House and Senate are poised to introduce legislation that will set the nation’s transportation course for the future. Recognizing that it is unlikely that more funding will be available for infrastructure needs, our ability to ensure the wise use of these limited resources, not only from the project selection standpoint, but throughout the entire project development process, demands critical attention.

Going forward, we need to ensure that a new program will indeed deliver measurable results in terms of safety, system reliability and efficiency. A performance-based program will help us get there.

Many of the comments in this discussion have touched on a key point of the reauthorization bill: if Congress pursues more fiscally responsible highway repair and maintenance strategies, our entire transportation system will benefit. Though much of our national highway system is crumbling, it is largely complete. Our public transportation network and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, on the other hand, are woefully inadequate.

As Smart Growth America’s recent report showed, between 2004 and 2008 states spent more than 50 percent of their collective highway capital budget on expansion projects that accounted for only one percent of highways, while repair and upkeep of the existing 99 percent of the system received less than half of all funds. These decisions are creating huge liabilities for states, and with budgets stretched so thin, we cannot afford to continue to spend on new capacity at the cost of existing roads. Challenging economic times presents an opportunity to re-evaluate our spending strategies and make some fundamental changes to our priorities.

If Congress adopted stronger mechanisms for prioritizing repair and maintenance projects, taxpayers across the country will benefit from lower future liabilities. By emphasizing a fiscally responsible approach to our highway network, we can also refocus our commitment to serving all Americans no matter what mode of transportation they use.

The recent report from Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense substantiates the need to rebuild and repair our 20th century infrastructure in order to prepare for the needs of a 21st century global economy. Too many past iterations of the transportation bill took the easy route — an easy-to-please approach that didn't include critical repair goals, performance targets and accountability measures that would have gone a long way toward restoring public trust in the federal transportation program.

The key takeaway, however, is that doing the fiscally responsible thing makes it easier to pursue other priorities and meet the needs of diverse constituencies. This is not a zero-sum game in which bringing roads, bridges, highways and transit systems into a state of good repair would happen at the expense of strategic capacity expansion or new infrastructure. And, if Congressional leaders are serious about reducing spending, saving between $6 and $14 for every $1 invested ought to be a slam-dunk.

Myriad polls suggest that repairing existing resources is precisely what the majority of Americans want. The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey conducted this year found that 86 percent of Americans favor prioritizing maintenance of our existing transportation system as much as possible. A commanding 49 percent strongly prefer that approach.

Rather than continuing to funnel money down the pipeline regardless of results, it’s time for Congress to pass a transportation bill that includes clear and transparent repair goals — and provides the needed resources to achieve them.

Whether or not a fix-it-first approach is enough to kick-start Congressional action on a reauthorization bill, there’s no question that it should be a top priority at every level, from federal to local.

We already know how deep a crisis is our transportation infrastructure is in. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America's infrastructure an overall grade of D. A recent report by Transportation for America told us more about the dangerously poor condition of our nation’s bridges.

We already know that endless highway expansion has fueled sprawl to the tune of billions of taxpayers of dollars, with disastrous consequences to our economy, ecology, and sense of community—from de facto segregation and urban disinvestment to suburban isolation and auto dependency.

Most importantly, at a time when millions of Americans are struggling economically and unemployment is ticking up again, fix-it-first creates more jobs than new construction. TEN’s 2008 report The Road to Good Jobs compares at the job-creation potential of transit investments, highway repair and maintenance, and new highway construction. The report concludes that transit is the biggest job creator, and highway repairs and maintenance the second-biggest. Numerous other studies have reached the same conclusion.

It’s a very good sign that the Obama administration has included a fix-it-first approach in its transportation authorization proposal. It’s hard to find reasons not to. True, it would mean fewer ribbon-cutting ceremonies for politicians who want a quick feel-good headline. I think that’s a sacrifice we can live with, no?

Preservation and repair are critical components of reauthorization of our surface transportation bill, and should serve as the foundation of any new bill.

Smart Growth America partnered with Taxpayers for Common Sense on the recent report “Repair Priorities: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads” to point out that our nation’s highway infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. As highways deteriorate they become exponentially more expensive to repair. The fiscally responsible approach is to preserve more of our highways in good condition, and to make the needed repairs early—when it costs taxpayers significantly less. The same approach is called for in managing other assets – our bridges, our transit systems, and our bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Our report found that despite the increasing state of deterioration of our highways, between 2004 and 2008 state DOTs spent less than 50 percent of their highway capital budgets on repair and preservation of this system. Instead, more than 50 percent of the budget went to adding a few thousand more lane miles, about one percent, to the system. The repair liability for future taxpayers is growing considerably. Our report estimated that states will collectively need to spend $43 billion annually over 20 years to get their roads up to good condition and keep them there, which is more than states currently spend on repair, preservation and new capacity combined. Recently when states were given a temporary budget boost through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Smart Growth America found the states spent 58.9% of flexible ARRA transportation funds on repairing and maintaining roads and bridges and 33.5% on building new ones.

There is considerable space for agreement in the bill, especially in the arena of repair and maintenance. A poll conducted in late 2010 showed that 76 percent of voters thought investing in repair and maintenance of existing roads and bridges was a smart investment that would cut costs and waste. A 51 percent of voters also chose investing in repair and maintenance as their top priority for investment- the next highest priority had 20 percent less support. State and federal budgets are stretched very thin, and this fiscally conservative approach to preserving our highway network will make sure we do more with the available means.

It’s pretty basic arithmetic. If states didn't divert 57 percent of highway money to build new lane miles, they could double spending on repair and maintenance without raising an additional dime of new taxes, tolls or federal bailouts.

America’s roads are in disrepair largely because of the wrong priorities.

A recent example is Wisconsin, where Governor Walker ran TV commercials touting how he would invest in repairing the states roads and bridges. But his transportation budget last month instead cuts funds for local road repair while committing the state to four new highway expansions that could cost more than $2 billion. This month’s report by WISPIRG found these projects are unjustified and appear unnecessary. For example:

The official data cited for the I-90 widening is both nearly 10 years old and does not support widening lanes as a measure to mitigate congestion. Additionally, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has inexplicably chosen the most expensive option for construction in every case on this project. Predictions for the cost of this project range from $715 million to $1.5 billion.

The official internal statement for the $125 million Highway 15 widening project in Outagamie County states that an intersection improvement might be a lower-cost and viable alternative to a major highway constructions project. It also states that without additional spending the Level of Service on the road likely won’t deteriorate until 2040.

To be fair, blame for the misguided spending priorities is shared widely. The current maze of federal highway programs is still geared less toward repair and more on building new lane miles – which are then rewarded bigger portions of formula funding. Federal laws do not hold states accountable for shifting money out of their bridge repair program, for instance, even if they neglect their bridges. Projects to build new or roads or lanes typically enjoy outside support from contractors, while mundane repairs performed internally lack an outside constituency.

Congress has an opportunity to fix these problems in the upcoming transportation reauthorization law. It can clearly prioritize achievement of a state of good repair over building new and wider roads. Not everyone will be pleased, but it’s the responsible thing to do.

In addition to Smart Growth America’s excellent new report, readers can also see U.S. PIRG’s study last year outlining the problem and a number of solutions.

The title of this week’s question (Could Focusing on Repairs Please Everyone?) is a symptom of a major problem in transportation policymaking. Over the past generation, the goal of pleasing everyone has done tremendous damage to the public perception of federal transportation programs. Fortunately for funding recipients, the damage was always swept under the rug as long as more money was available for broader and broader distribution. Many believed that a “big tent” meant more power and an unstoppable political force. But it is clear that the goal of pleasing everyone meant a poorer return-on-investment for those funding the programs with highway user fees. This mentality has directly resulted in the current reality, where one-hundred times as many associations exist to support a transportation bill (compared to 50 years ago), but our friends in Congress tell us they won’t take the political risks to raise money to fund it. Whether or not the politicians’ fears are justified is debatable, but the perception is the reality we have to deal with.

We need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that not every Washington group will be pleased with the next authorization bill, but it's needed medicine because it must be focused on reform and elimination of wasteful programs. Over the longer term, this reform could lead to more public support for funding. Smart Growth America’s report suggests one way to reform the federal program. And there is no doubt that, as the current system ages, that maintenance and repairs are important.

But we disagree with the recommendations, because it would be pennywise and pound-foolish to repair an old road or bridge without also looking at other critical FEDERAL responsibilities regarding congestion, freight-mobility, and safety. In many cases, decades-old roads and bridges need to be replaced with wider and safer facilities. In addition, we can’t ignore that population and demographic shifts mean that there is a national economic and security interest in construction of new Interstate and NHS roads and bridges where needed (i.e. Las Vegas to Phoenix) and redundant routes that give users new options (particularly for emergencies).

We also cannot forget that our country must compete economically with the rest of the world. A great advantage that we traditionally have had over competitors is our ability to move goods reliably from farm-to-market; factory-to-port, within and beyond metropolitan areas. Focusing only on repairs is not enough to maintain this advantage over time. Instead we should embrace the long-term economic potential of an efficient, expanded, congestion-free National Highway System. This is a worthy goal that should also be a key part of a reformed federal program.

There is no way to get around the data – as a nation we are not investing enough in our surface transportation system. While our transportation systems crumble, it continues to under-perform. ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded the nation’s roads a D-, bridges a C, and transit systems a D. In order to bring just these three categories of the nation’s infrastructure into a state of good repair it would take an estimated $1.2 trillion, from 2009 – 2013. If current spending levels are maintained we would spend only $455 billion over that same period. Unfortunately, we are not likely to even maintain these current levels!

Effective maintenance programs are critical for the integrity of the nation’s surface transportation system. With the current surface transportation system falling into extreme disrepair, focusing a new six year authorization on maintenance could gain strong bipartisan support and the driving public would benefit.

While funding for repair and maintenance is crucial, the issue remains one that many in Washington place on the back burner. New projects gain recognition, while repair and maintenance projects are generally overlooked by those at home. Reports like those from Smart Growth for America highlight the vast need for additional dedicated maintenance funding, while the data from AASHTO show the economic benefits when maintaining a system in a state of good repair.

Any six year transportation legislation to properly address the looming problem would require significant additional revenue for the Highway Trust Fund. At a time where the attitude by many on Capitol Hill is to “do more with less”, introducing legislation that would raise enough revenue to repair our existing system seems unlikely. However, taking the new authorization bill and focusing on repairing what is already built is still one possible way to move America forward at a time of budget cuts.

Having served as State Highway Director in Colorado and Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylavanis DOT, I am astounded at your suggestion that States and cities have neglected maintenance and repair in favor of constructing new capacity. Quite the contrary, to my knowledge, state DOT's for years have consistently emphasized repair and maintenance and given these categories top priority.Of course, capacity improvements are sometimes also necessary to support economic growth and safety but these are usually funded as a last resort. Decisions as to how to invest infrastructure spending, where and when are best left to state and local agencies with the advice of the public and can hardly be proscribed from Washington.

Whether you are visiting our nation's capital or commuting to work in the Metropolitan Washington area, if you use the Metro, you can't help but notice the system is "under repair". Temporary closures, single-tracking, escalators being worked on and others closed to be used as walkers. These are a daily reality for our customers. Many years of inadequate maintenance and inadequate capital spending and most importantly less than needed funding have taken their toll on our nation's capital subway system. With the exception of the long planned Dulles extension there will be no new expansion of the Metro in the near future. Metro will be concentrating on returning to a state of repair for at least the next six years, the length of our $5 billion capital plan. But for the inconveniences we are experiencing now, this critical work will eventually mean visitors and locals will enjoy a system that will have improved safety, reliability and continue to create development opportunities.

Washington Metro is far from the only heavy rail system in the United States with significant "state of good repair" problems. Philadelphia, New York and Chicago to name just three are working to improve aging systems. Given the current economic situation and the need to address our growing federal deficit, it is likely there will be very limited funding authorized in the next Surface Transportation legislation. Clearly for Washington Metro the priority is continued support to fund our capital programs. It makes little sense to contemplate expansion of infrastructure which is crumbling, whether on our federal highways or transit systems, until we have returned them to the first class state all Americans should expect for their hard earned tax dollars.